By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
Pew PatriotsPew PatriotsPew Patriots
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
  • Home
  • News
  • Tactical
  • Guns and Gear
  • Prepping & Survival
  • Videos
Reading: The US needs drones, not Trump-class battleships, Democrats argue
Share
Font ResizerAa
Pew PatriotsPew Patriots
  • News
  • Tactical
  • Guns and Gear
  • Prepping & Survival
  • Videos
Search
  • Home
  • News
  • Tactical
  • Guns and Gear
  • Prepping & Survival
  • Videos
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
The US needs drones, not Trump-class battleships, Democrats argue
Tactical

The US needs drones, not Trump-class battleships, Democrats argue

Jimmie Dempsey
Last updated: June 4, 2026 11:41 pm
Jimmie Dempsey Published June 4, 2026
Share
SHARE

House Democrats expressed frustration with the U.S. military for seeking funding for a $17 billion battleship instead of investing more in cheaper autonomous weapons systems as warfare continues to change rapidly.

During a House Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, lawmakers said that investing in Trump-class battleships would mean ignoring lessons learned from past Navy mistakes in which the service invested billions of dollars in ill-conceived procurement programs.

Instead, lawmakers wanted the military to invest in the future, incorporating lessons about the importance of uncrewed systems that other conflicts, such as the war in Ukraine, have laid bare.

“This is the most expensive sitting duck in world history,” said Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass. “This battleship is a boondoggle.”

Moulton referenced an op-ed by retired Navy Adm. James Stavridis in which he argued battleships are entirely obsolete in the face of hypersonic missiles, drone swarms and a litany of modern weapons systems.

The battleship was a “vanity project” that would inevitably fall by the wayside and vanish once Trump left office and Republicans came to their senses, Moulton said.

The discussion revolved around the allocation of $1 billion for the Trump-class battleship included in the House’s version of the NDAA. An amendment proposed by Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking Democrat on the committee, sought to void that allocation completely.

The amendment failed on a 26-30 vote, but lawmakers were defiant in their rejection of the Trump-class battleship program, and more broadly, of what it meant fiscally and strategically for the military.

President Donald Trump’s $1.5 trillion fiscal 2027 Defense Department budget request listed the cost of the first Trump-class battleship at $17 billion, but a Congressional Budget Office report assessed that the ship could cost closer to $20 billion.

Construction on the first Trump-class battleship is slated to begin in 2028, with delivery scheduled for the 2030s, according to Navy budget estimates.

“Where we need to be going is smaller more attritable autonomous systems,” Smith said. “The capabilities of these systems are growing by leaps and bounds from one iteration to the next and they cost pennies compared to what something like this battleship would cost.”

Trump announced his desire in December 2025 to build several Trump-class battleships. It would mark the first time the Navy would pursue building a battleship since 1944, when the Iowa-class USS Missouri was launched.

RELATED

Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., said he took umbrage with the fact that the president announced plans for the battleship without any proof of design or analysis, instead offering an AI-generated photo during a concept unveiling at his Florida resort over the holiday season.

The $1 billion included in the NDAA requested $390 million to go toward design and $610 million for fabricated parts and steel for the design of the ship.

Smith specifically cited previous instances in which the Navy put the cart before the horse, pointing toward the Zumwalt-class, littoral combat ship and the Next Generation Cruiser, or CG(X), program in which the shipbuilding process saw construction begin before design was complete, leading to ship failures — and a program cancellation in the case of the CG(X) program.

Other lawmakers piled on.

“Look to the present and then to the future and say, ‘Does this make any sense?’” said Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif. “This battleship makes absolutely no sense.”

Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., questioned the possibility for success of a battleship planned to be outfitted with weapons systems that hadn’t even been built yet.

The president’s namesake vessel would rely on hypersonic missiles, electromagnetic railguns and high-powered lasers, Trump said in December.

But the hypersonic missile program was only in its testing phase, and the Navy’s electromagnetic railgun program was paused in 2021 after never fielding the weapon. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle recently admitted that high-energy laser weapons were necessary but would require more funding and research to implement widely across the Navy fleet.

“The necessity of this Trump-class battleship … comes from the name and name alone,” Vindman said. “The real need on the modern battlefield is cheaper, smaller, distributed and, in some cases, unmanned systems.”

The $17 billion price tag of the battleship would enable the military to buy roughly 3.5 million of $5,000 drones, Vindman said.

Riley Ceder is a reporter at Military Times, where he covers breaking news, criminal justice, investigations, and cyber. He previously worked as an investigative practicum student at The Washington Post, where he contributed to the Abused by the Badge investigation.

Read the full article here

You Might Also Like

Navy rolls out updates for working uniform and service dress blues

US Navy is reviewing cost of future Ford-class carriers to ensure they ‘make sense’

7 Calibers That Will Disappear FIRST in 2026

US blockade of Iran will be major military endeavor, experts say

Thousands of Marines, sailors back in Japan after deploying for Iran war

Share This Article
Facebook Twitter Email Print
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

We Recommend
Joint Base Andrews to recieve 26 HH-60Ws, stand up helicopter squadron
Tactical

Joint Base Andrews to recieve 26 HH-60Ws, stand up helicopter squadron

Jimmie Dempsey Jimmie Dempsey August 12, 2026
9mm vs .380, .40, .45, and 10mm: The Carry Caliber Fight!
U-Haul worker allegedly shoots co-worker dead after argument during shift: Police
Marine veteran Robert Gilman returns to US soil as Trump admin fulfills request: ‘No American left behind’
Trump swaps planes via catering truck after Iranian threats, reports say
Ukraine pounds Black Sea Fleet’s ‘last major stronghold’ while Putin flexes naval power in Pacific
Air Force should regard AI as readiness issue across critical career fields, report says
Tactical

Air Force should regard AI as readiness issue across critical career fields, report says

Jimmie Dempsey Jimmie Dempsey August 12, 2026
Guns and Gear

Beyond The Basics Of EDC

Jimmie Dempsey Jimmie Dempsey August 12, 2026
News

Mamdani’s team said NYPD would accompany his wife on Middle East vacation — cops say that’s not true

Jimmie Dempsey Jimmie Dempsey August 12, 2026
Pew Patriots
  • News
  • Tactical
  • Prepping & Survival
  • Videos
  • Guns and Gear
2024 © Pew Patriots. All Rights Reserved.
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?